Philosophy and Self-Justification

Alain de Botton notes in his book Status Anxiety that many societies see a direct relationship between reputation and self-image. If others hold me in contempt, then I must either defend myself against their contempt or accept their contemptuous assessment. Philosophy introduces a mediator, reason, which assesses and judges reputation for its truth value. If reputation does not match reality, then one can maintain a good self-image in spite of the slings and arrows of society. Philosophy has thus also often been misanthropic, or at least skeptical of the wisdom of the crowd. This is a nice exercise if one wants to be protected from shame. But philosophy’s approach is incoherent; for on what basis do I trust my judgment over that of others? Is it because I know myself better than others? Do I? Philosophers certainly assume that this is the case, but it’s not at all clear that it’s true.

There are undoubted benefits to philosophy. Philosophy limits or eliminates duelling and other violent resolutions of a shame-honor conflict. If someone throws down the gauntlet and calls me a cad, I can calmly and philosophically conclude that he is wrong, and walk away. I don’t have to fight to prove it. Yet, ultimately, philosophy (in de Botton’s setup) is a mechanism for self-justification, a method for putting the self in the position as judge of the self. And that, Barth saw, was a fundamental sin, for Christians confess that there is one Judge only. Our status, our honor or shame, is indeed dependent on another’s assessment. But He is a merciful assessor. That is justification by faith.